By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony World Wide Studio Boss Hermen Hulst Q&A - Confirms Horizon Zero Dawn Coming To PC This Summer

src said:

Playstation makes 4 times the revenue Valve does. If you're talking about success, most companies don't come close to Playstation. 

Prove it. No really... A claim like this requires evidence.

src said:

Playstation dominated Nintendo because they had exclusives that you couldn't play on a N64 or GC. . 

The Nintendo 64 and Gamecube both had exclusives, some were regarded as the best games of all time.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
twintail said:

I feel the my point that you can't have it all for a variety of different products/ services still stands. 

Something can only be anti-consumer if a product/ service benefits the company at the expense of the consumer of said product/ service. 

Because Mario only being on Switch, Halo only being on X1 and God of War being only on PS4 are, in themselves, also examples of software that actually benefits the user of those particular consoles. that said, you do agree that 1st party software is an exception and that it is really 3rd party content that falls under this.

To a point, I don't disagree. But it also requires context. This means that specific exclusives can be anti-consumer. Tome Raider is a possible example of this: MS having exclusivity (which became timed) could have benefited SE at the expense of their larger PS userbase. SF5 also ignores the previous X360 userbase, but are reports that they weren't going to fund it true? Is FF7 remake anti-consumer even though it's a remake of a previously PS1 exclusive title?

These can be argued, but they also represent a title by title situation. So yes, I agree that exclusives can be anti-consumer, but I disagree that exclusives as a concept is, because without knowledge into how these exclusives came about we can't judge that consumers are being purposely left out. 

The sole purpose of hardware from a brand creates exclusives and exclusive deals which is what breeds anti-consumer practices. These companies will do anything to make you buy into there platform regardless if you want to or not.

FF7 is not made or own by Sony, behind the scenes is a company deal to make it console exclusive even through the OG FF7 is also on PC, Switch and Xbox. The entire Remake is anti-consumer because Sony is stopping it from appearing on other devices. Understandable if Sony owned or made the game but they don't and the game is locked from Nintendo and Xbox users. 

The throught behind Consoles is anti-consumer because there designed to lock players in and make players spend more money. We just accepted it since its been a going practice for decades however the movie industry has been doing it right, doesn't matter if you own a Samsung, Sony or Panasonic Blu-Ray player, they will read the same Blu-Ray disks. What sells the Device is based on the quality and Value of the device not locking in movie exclusives to sell the hardware.



Azzanation said:
Stellar_Fungk said:
I don’t know, man. First party console games should stick to their respective console. If I wanna play Sony games I buy a PS4. HZD was made with that console in mind.

What if Nintendo games release on PC. Oh the horror.

I think exclusivity will die this generation and Microsoft started it :(

Exclusives are anti-consumer, it means you have to pay more to play more games, why do consumers want that? Oh that's right, because they are consumers not customers, consumers eat up anything companies tell them while customers shop around.

Cerebralbore101 said:

The 360 halved Sony's userbase?

https://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/

157 million divided by two does not equal 87 million.

Let's not forget several facts regarding PS2. 

1. It had amazing legs. Just look at these post 2006 shipment numbers! https://web.archive.org/web/20120609161654/scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps2_e.html

2. The consoles it competed against were all from either companies new to the console business (Microsoft), or trying to recover from a serious last gen decline (Sega/Nintendo).

3. Being a cheap DVD player helped drive sales. The DVD format was a revolutionary improvement over VHS. Nearly everybody wanted a DVD player, and PS2 was a DVD player that could also play games. It cost the same or less as other DVD players of the early 2000s. 

The writing was on the wall for the Wii U's failure. The two consoles before the Wii sold 32 Million, and 22 Million. Sony on the other hand handily won three generations, and effectively tied for 2nd place vs a 360 with a 50% failure rate on it's initial model. https://consumerist.com/2009/08/17/xbox-360-failure-rate-is-542-percent-game-informer-finds/

So up until 2009 or whenever the slim came out there was a massive failure rate, causing people to buy 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 360's. I went through three of the things, and didn't even bother getting a PS3 until 2008!

We could easily attribute 10 million in 360 sales to RROD. That puts the adjusted count at 87 million PS3's vs 75 Million 360's. 

Now let's remember that 360 had a full year's launch ahead of PS3. So adjust another 4-5 million downward. 

Xbox is on the surge upwards, your lack of respect for the PS5s competitor is exactly what happen when the PS3 launched against the 360.

XB1 sales have been in the 40,000 to 50,000 range in weekly sales for the past 8-10 months. That's not a surge upwards. That's a precipitous decline. Perhaps you meant surge upwards in some hazy, non-objective, marketing terms? In that case, the color black is more appealing to me personally, than the color green, therefore Xbox Series X will clearly lose the battle, based solely on my personal non-objective preferences. Good argument isn't it? (Hint: It's not.)

360 RROD was covered by warranty and MS spent $1.5b to fix the issue, even with spending $1.5b the 360 still lost less money than the PS3.

My point is with healthy competition, the userbase divides, Sony went from 150m customers to 80m, Xbox went from 30m customers to 80m and Nintendo went from 20m customers to 100m customers. This gen the competition wasn't healthy until the S and Switch released however that was midway through the generation.

The surge of Xbox is being missed read for some odd reason. I am not referring to this generation I am referring to the Xbox brand and the decision making and next gen planning. Xbox is going to be bigger next gen. As others have mentioned, its what MS is building upon for next gen. If you think Sony is just going to walk out the gate with PS2 or PS4 numbers expecting no competition from Xbox or Nintendo than you need to take the glasses for a min and look around you.

Next gen is looking more like Gen 7 if the competition remains heavily competitive with no slip ups. 

Also half of 157m is 78m which is very close to 87m. Which rounds out to be half.

The 360 also sold 1b software on a platform that sold less than 90m consoles, its the only console to achieve that milestone so thats a feat in itself and guess what makes more money.. suprise, the software, the PS3 sold less software overall to the 360 aswell.

At the End of the day, the more competition can lead to a more level playing field like we saw last gen. In this case, if all 3 brands have great consoles at launch than expect tight sales between the 3.

MS spending money to fix the problem doesn't change the fact that many people were buying multiple 360's due to the RROD issue. 

My point is with healthy competition, the userbase divides, Sony went from 150m customers to 80m, Xbox went from 30m customers to 80m and Nintendo went from 20m customers to 100m customers. This gen the competition wasn't healthy until the S and Switch released however that was midway through the generation.

You still don't see the forest for the trees. Roughly 30 million of the sales loss from PS2 to PS3 had nothing to do with competition. It had to do with Blu-Ray not being as revolutionary as DVD, with many countries not getting an affordable PS2 price until 2004-2007, and with the following gen being disappointing early on (which led to people still buying and sticking with the PS2 until 2008). https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/05/ps2_most_played_2008_nielson_yearly_roundup/

10-20 million of the 360's sales had nothing to do with competition either. It had to do with RROD. 

And again with Wii. Nintendo didn't reach that 100 million number by stealing (A.K.A. Competition) gamers from Sony, or MS. They made it by getting Grandmas and Soccer Moms temporarily into gaming. As well as getting many people to buy Wii as a cheap 2nd system. 

If we take the historical context into account, the difference that competition made would be Xbox 360 gaining 40 million users, PS3 losing 30 million users, and Nintendo gaining 30 million users over GameCube. 

You remind me of rural Texans thinking they can secede from the union with just a citizen's militia. They'll say that the 13 colonies rebelled against the British Superpower and won, with just a simple militia, therefore Texas can rebel against the USA and win. 

But just like you they ignore the historical context. Britain was thousands of miles away, and fighting a war with another superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783) Colonial times were unique in that the citizenry had weapons on par with the military of the time. Today, civilians do not have military grade weapons. 

Switch is definitely healthy competition, but the S? XB1 weekly sales numbers are still half to a quarter of PS4 weekly sales numbers. That's not healthy competition. Also remember that Switch has massive crossover appeal. Nintendo is rarely stealing sales from PS4 or XB1, but rather getting people to buy a Switch as a 2nd system. 

Anyway, my point here is that yes competition can even out sales, but it is not the be-all end-all of sales. There are other factors that come into play, and those need to be accounted for in order to see the bigger picture. 

P.S. I agree that 360 did indeed do more software sales. But it's console royalty fees that ultimately make more money for a console, not individual software sales. MS didn't have better profit margins than Sony because they were making a boatload of money directly from sales of Halo 3's, and GoW's. They had a better profit margin because every 3rd party dev had to pay a $10-$15 console royalty fee per game sold. And having games like Halo, GoW, Fable, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, etc indirectly helped them with that goal, by moving more console units, which lead to more 3rd party sales, hence more $10-$15 royalty fees racked up. 

I am referring to the Xbox brand and the decision making and next gen planning. 

Like I said, hazy, non-objective, marketing terms. 



DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

At least for the diehard fans, imagine an entire culture imploding on itself.

The fans proudly claim that the pillar of their brand is the 1st party exclusives that set themselves apart from Xbox, especially with MSs initiative to put theirs on PC day 1. Now they can’t claim that, any exclusive is possible on PC now....people might just wait Sony out now. I’m anxious to see what the new emerging narrative will be to adapt to this new initiative. 

Thank god you have matured right?

Couldn’t resist lol. Takes me back to when MS announced this initiative years ago. It sucked at first but then I’m like: Wait a tick...MS has a PC OS monopoly with their own dedicated store. 

Made it realllllly easy to get the ol shovel and dig up them goal posts, move them around at night so in the morning nobody would notice :)

Edit: Would you agree that this changes the brand? Especially as more get added over the years?

Last edited by sales2099 - on 13 March 2020

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

last92 said:
Random_Matt said:

One game and people explode.

One game is all it takes to set an important precedent.

Rumors about ND games coming to PC, as well as previous comments by Cory Barlog regarding GoW, strongly suggest that many PS games will come to PC. I'm not exploding. I'm just making informed decisions based on available information. PS exclusives were literally the only reason why a have a PS4.

Herman specifically said this is not a precedent though. There are also no credible rumours of other SIE titles coming to PC other than wild speculation. 

You say informed, yet the very basis of your decision is the opposite of informed: speculative. 

If you think PS5 won't have any exclusives then you're going to be in for a rude awakening. 

Azzanation said:
src said: 

Game awards are one award. https://gotypicks.blogspot.com/?m=1 compiles many just like we use metacritic/opencritic. 

Mate, Video game awards are a joke, there are over 200+ GOTY awards given out every year and many are worthless. Some are even given out from internal studio's official magazines which are heavily bias. 

You have to find the right sites to determine which is worth an award and which isn't. For example, UC4 won plenty of GOTY awards, but from who? Overwatch won majority of the main important GOTY awards from my understanding hence why it was the GOTY that year by the main critics. Death Stranding I haven't even heard of it winning any GOTY awards however not saying it didn't, but so did a lot of other games as well. GOTY awards at least by my standards is based on the quality of the award not the quantity. Because from what iv seen, there is too much crap awards given away. 

So basically it all comes down to your own opinion on what you think is GOTY as anyone can pluck a GOTY award from some random site and claim that's the best game that year.

Your notion of importance is completely subjective. A french enthusiast will find jeuxvideo more important than gamespot. It's also completely irrelevant as GOTYpicks is an aggregate of all awards.

If a game was only critically acclaimed in one area or fan segment it would not be able to get the most awards. UC4 got 63 more awards than OW. Sorry if reality differs from your opinion. 

Pemalite said:
src said:

Playstation makes 4 times the revenue Valve does. If you're talking about success, most companies don't come close to Playstation. 

Prove it. No really... A claim like this requires evidence.

src said:

Playstation dominated Nintendo because they had exclusives that you couldn't play on a N64 or GC. . 

The Nintendo 64 and Gamecube both had exclusives, some were regarded as the best games of all time.

I misread, seems the estimate only includes sales.

PS revenue FY 2017 - $17.53 billion

Steam revenue estimate FY 2017 - $4.3 billion 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qjG_oXQrLMUJ:https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is little Valve can have to make up for another $13 billion though. 

Okay but PS1/2 had far more exclusives and a lot bigger exclusives from third parties. 



Around the Network

2016 - Phil Spencer says not every Xbox game will come to PC.

2020 - Every Xbox game is on PC.

2020 - Sony says not every SIE game will come to PC.

2024 - Every SIE game is on PC.



src said:
Azzanation said:

Mate, Video game awards are a joke, there are over 200+ GOTY awards given out every year and many are worthless. Some are even given out from internal studio's official magazines which are heavily bias. 

You have to find the right sites to determine which is worth an award and which isn't. For example, UC4 won plenty of GOTY awards, but from who? Overwatch won majority of the main important GOTY awards from my understanding hence why it was the GOTY that year by the main critics. Death Stranding I haven't even heard of it winning any GOTY awards however not saying it didn't, but so did a lot of other games as well. GOTY awards at least by my standards is based on the quality of the award not the quantity. Because from what iv seen, there is too much crap awards given away. 

So basically it all comes down to your own opinion on what you think is GOTY as anyone can pluck a GOTY award from some random site and claim that's the best game that year.

Your notion of importance is completely subjective. A french enthusiast will find jeuxvideo more important than gamespot. It's also completely irrelevant as GOTYpicks is an aggregate of all awards.

If a game was only critically acclaimed in one area or fan segment it would not be able to get the most awards. UC4 got 63 more awards than OW. Sorry if reality differs from your I misread, seems the estimate only includes sales.

PS revenue FY 2017 - $17.53 billion

Steam revenue estimate FY 2017 - $4.3 billion 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qjG_oXQrLMUJ:https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is little Valve can have to make up for another $13 billion though. 

Okay but PS1/2 had far more exclusives and a lot bigger exclusives from third parties. 

No where did i say UC4 didnt win more awards. What i am telling you is majority of the popular opinion of GOTY awards went to Overwatch. I could care less if some unknown french reporter decides to give UC4 GOTY however i would pay more attention to outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Polygon and even the Game Awards as there opinion holds up stronger than some Joebob1380 GOTY winner. 

Take that as you wish. I could care less about GOTY Awards however lets not act like the main outlets mean little compared to the smaller ones.

Also if Steam charged their customers $60 a year to play there games online than that gap reduces immensely.



Azzanation said:
src said:

Your notion of importance is completely subjective. A french enthusiast will find jeuxvideo more important than gamespot. It's also completely irrelevant as GOTYpicks is an aggregate of all awards.

If a game was only critically acclaimed in one area or fan segment it would not be able to get the most awards. UC4 got 63 more awards than OW. Sorry if reality differs from your I misread, seems the estimate only includes sales.

PS revenue FY 2017 - $17.53 billion

Steam revenue estimate FY 2017 - $4.3 billion 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qjG_oXQrLMUJ:https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is little Valve can have to make up for another $13 billion though. 

Okay but PS1/2 had far more exclusives and a lot bigger exclusives from third parties. 

No where did i say UC4 didnt win more awards. What i am telling you is majority of the popular opinion of GOTY awards went to Overwatch. I could care less if some unknown french reporter decides to give UC4 GOTY however i would pay more attention to outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Polygon and even the Game Awards as there opinion holds up stronger than some Joebob1380 GOTY winner. 

Take that as you wish. I could care less about GOTY Awards however lets not act like the main outlets mean little compared to the smaller ones. The gaming industry can be incredibly bias and base there opinions on popular views rather than what is deserving. Its why i never follow the heard because its a mess.

Also if Steam charged their customers $60 a year to play there games online than that gap reduces immensely.



Azzanation said:
twintail said:

I feel the my point that you can't have it all for a variety of different products/ services still stands. 

Something can only be anti-consumer if a product/ service benefits the company at the expense of the consumer of said product/ service. 

Because Mario only being on Switch, Halo only being on X1 and God of War being only on PS4 are, in themselves, also examples of software that actually benefits the user of those particular consoles. that said, you do agree that 1st party software is an exception and that it is really 3rd party content that falls under this.

To a point, I don't disagree. But it also requires context. This means that specific exclusives can be anti-consumer. Tome Raider is a possible example of this: MS having exclusivity (which became timed) could have benefited SE at the expense of their larger PS userbase. SF5 also ignores the previous X360 userbase, but are reports that they weren't going to fund it true? Is FF7 remake anti-consumer even though it's a remake of a previously PS1 exclusive title?

These can be argued, but they also represent a title by title situation. So yes, I agree that exclusives can be anti-consumer, but I disagree that exclusives as a concept is, because without knowledge into how these exclusives came about we can't judge that consumers are being purposely left out. 

The sole purpose of hardware from a brand creates exclusives and exclusive deals which is what breeds anti-consumer practices. These companies will do anything to make you buy into there platform regardless if you want to or not.

FF7 is not made or own by Sony, behind the scenes is a company deal to make it console exclusive even through the OG FF7 is also on PC, Switch and Xbox. The entire Remake is anti-consumer because Sony is stopping it from appearing on other devices. Understandable if Sony owned or made the game but they don't and the game is locked from Nintendo and Xbox users. 

The throught behind Consoles is anti-consumer because there designed to lock players in and make players spend more money. We just accepted it since its been a going practice for decades however the movie industry has been doing it right, doesn't matter if you own a Samsung, Sony or Panasonic Blu-Ray player, they will read the same Blu-Ray disks. What sells the Device is based on the quality and Value of the device not locking in movie exclusives to sell the hardware.

Nah, the console you buy has nothing to do with whatever deals publishers make with their games. Whatever console you buy to do so based on the software that interests you, be it at the time of purchase or in the future. This means the benefit to the customer is apparent. Buying a switch doesn't result in a detriment to you unless it ends up being a poorly made product that just broke or something.

DRM is an example of anti consumer behaviour, because what benefit does it provide the user? How does DRM improve the experience? It doesn't. If anything it makes the experience worse for the consumer. Your choice is either not buy the game, or buy the game and have DRM hurt your experience. Hence, anti consumer .

Your gaming experience is not hurt because you decided to buy an X1 based on what it was providing, and going to provide you.

As for 3rd party exclusives, again it's case by case. Unless we know the exact deals we can only assume, maybe correctly, as to how the exclusivity came about. Something like Ff7 is arguably anti consumer. But it's not exclusive, and it was announced well before FF7 hit either X1 or Switch.



Cerebralbore101 said:
2016 - Phil Spencer says not every Xbox game will come to PC.

2020 - Every Xbox game is on PC.

2020 - Sony says not every SIE game will come to PC.

2024 - Every SIE game is on PC.

Playstation is nothing like Xbox though.

Xbox crashed its hardware sales and nearly all its IPs have declined heavily.

Meanwhile, PS is going to end with 120-130 million, making more money than PS1/2 days, revenue larger than nearly every gaming company, 5+ IPs selling 10 million+ etc.

Azzanation said:
src said:

Your notion of importance is completely subjective. A french enthusiast will find jeuxvideo more important than gamespot. It's also completely irrelevant as GOTYpicks is an aggregate of all awards.

If a game was only critically acclaimed in one area or fan segment it would not be able to get the most awards. UC4 got 63 more awards than OW. Sorry if reality differs from your I misread, seems the estimate only includes sales.

PS revenue FY 2017 - $17.53 billion

Steam revenue estimate FY 2017 - $4.3 billion 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qjG_oXQrLMUJ:https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-23-valves-generates-record-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There is little Valve can have to make up for another $13 billion though. 

Okay but PS1/2 had far more exclusives and a lot bigger exclusives from third parties. 

No where did i say UC4 didnt win more awards. What i am telling you is majority of the popular opinion of GOTY awards went to Overwatch. I could care less if some unknown french reporter decides to give UC4 GOTY however i would pay more attention to outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Polygon and even the Game Awards as there opinion holds up stronger than some Joebob1380 GOTY winner. 

Take that as you wish. I could care less about GOTY Awards however lets not act like the main outlets mean little compared to the smaller ones.

Also if Steam charged their customers $60 a year to play there games online than that gap reduces immensely.

You don't get to declare whats popular. Numbers declare whats popular. The numbers show UC4 was a lot more popular as GOTY so you're once again wrong.

Oh and you are also showing how US centric you are. Gaming is a worldwide industry. US =/ the World

You basically proved my point.